Biased teachings
Again this term, there is a growing number of
students who are upset by the inclusion in College
courses of an instructor's personal and private be
liefs.
It is our opinion that an instructor's biases,
whether they be for atheism, Christianity, Trans-
cedental Meditation, or racism, have no place in
the curriculum of a class.
We freely admit that an instructor's personal
feelings, experiences and views can add interest to
an otherwise dull lecture and that academic freedom
is a necessary part of our educational system. How
ever, there are extremes to which both these things
can be carried.
When instructors allow no other beliefs than
their own to be discussed by the class, when they
fail to allow students to question biased or incom
plete teachings and when their personal beliefs are
taught as fact, to the exclusion of the views of rec
ognized authorities, then these instructors have
abused their positions.
Perhaps instructors with strong biases concern
ing God or the lack of one, or who are hyped up on
self-awareness "cult" teachings should set aside
time after class when they could discuss these
things with those students who are interested.
Or perhaps there could be a description posted
somewhere describing what this instructor will teach
in this particular class. Then students could decide
whether or not they wanted to incorporate these
ideas into their curriculum.
Those students who felt that an instructor's
biases would be a detriment to their own learning
process would then be able to decide before enroll
ing which instructors they would be comfortable
with.
Or perhaps, administrators should keep a wary
eye on instructors who are known to abuse their
privileges in this area and give them duties that
offend no one.
opinion
Other viewpoints
No commercials for children?
* Editor's note: This article was
an editorial in the Jan. 20 issue of
the Courier 4, the official weekly
newspaper at Chemeketa Commu
nity College in Salem.
Educational 'dinosaur' evolves
By Gerry Bellavita
For The Print
In searching for a topic of
commentary for the Print,
I
found myself reviewing my "pet"
causes. As a practicing generalist,
with little expertise in many given
areas, there is no lack of impor
tant, crucial, mindbendi ng,societal,
imperatives for me to speculate
upon—the planet, the nation, Ore
gon, Clackamas County—they are
all relevant boundaries for the
substance of
my dreams and
opinions.
I can assume a limited set of
"common interests" with the read
ers of the Community College
Weekly and feel a constraint to
address myself to those areas of
shared interest.
Foremost among those inter
ests, I further assume, is the area
of education—one of my giant
"pet" causes.
I'm not satisfied with what
American Society has going in the
field of education. I'm not neg
ative about where we are (well,
maybe a little negative) so much
as generally dissatisfied.
Basic education
(the first
through twelfth grades) has failed
so far in "adapting to the greatest
tidal wave of transition in history."
The ponderous education bureau
cracies are in the early stages of a
complete systemic failure to adapt
to the rest of the world. Like the
dinosaurs of the Mesozoic past,
the terrible lizards of today roam
the nation intent on mass medi
ocre education.
Feeding on the time, talent
and energy of millions of well-
intentioned students, teachers, ad
ministrators, parents and politi
cians, the muscle bound bureau
cracy has grown through the years
to a size that surpasses functional
viability.
Do you recall the stories of the
beast that had a little brain in its
tail and another brain in it's head,
hundreds of feet away?
That
creature didn't survive because it
took too much time to process
neurological signals and feedback
appropriate responses.
Education is only one of today's
dinosaurs that suffers from that
evolutionary maladaptation.
What can we do about it? It
seems so much more complex an
issue than recycling, for instance,
where I can take an individual
initiative to separate organic waste
from the glass, tin, aluminum,
paper and plastics long before
society transitions to a source
recovery mode
of solid waste
treatment.
That type of solution is appar-
ently not as effective with éduca-
tion. That is to say, I fail to see
what I, as an individual, can ini-
tiate to substantially change the
education monster in contact with
my own life to bring it down to
human scale and to do it in a way
that allows for a moderate transi
tion rather than a cataclysmic
transformation.
The closest I can come to a con
ceptualization of one change that
will have wide impact on education
as a whole is to shift the method
of government support of schools.
As it is now, the government,
through the states, pays school
districts by a formula based on the
number of full-time students en
rolled (called FTE or full time
equivalency reimbursement).
What I would like to see is
those payments going directly to
parents in the form of a voucher.
The voucher can be "cashed-in"
at a school that is accredited by
the state as eligible to receive
educational vouchers, the parent
choosing the school that best meets
his or her child's needs.
What will happen, among other
things, is that that school will
have to respond to the demands of
the open-market, creating a var
iety of educational choices to
meet the diverse and changing
needs as seen by individuals—not
institutions.
Perhaps it's time for Oregon
to take up a new initiative and
create a model of a state-wide
voucher system as a demonstra
tion for the nation.
Our state can demonstrate the
positive elements of a voucher
system and be "trouble-shooter"
for the new problems a change
like this is sure to bring.
Oh, but my heart warms to the
thrill of a challenge as potentially
rewardingas making the education
system truly responsive to indi
vidual needs.
Dream on, dreamer, and you
may wake up to find you're not
dreaming alone.
Decisions will be made soon to
determine whether or not children
should be treated as consumers.
According to the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), there are ap
proximately 25,OOOtelevision com
mercials viewed by the average
American child each year.
The FTC's four-man commis
sion is presently evaluating a series
of recommendations from its staff
which would institute broad, new
restrictions on advertising directed
towards children.
If these recommendations are
approved, there will follow a series
of public hearings and a period of
debate which will give parents an
opportunity to voice their opin
ions about such advertising.
One of the recommended regu
lations is that advertisers of pre
sweetened cereals be required to
list such a product's sugar con
tent. Other possible restrictions
would be a limit on the content
and techniques of selling, particu
larly directed towards programs
aimed at smaller children.
Some of the options available
to the FTC would force television
to limit the amount of advertis
ing on children's programming or
eliminate it altogether.
Those in opposition of such re
strictions base their fears on gov
ernment control and censorship
and argue in favor of voluntary in
dustry standards.
They ask, "who will pay for
children's programming if commer
cials are banned?"
Some suggest, considering the
huge profits in television adver
tising, networks offer Saturday
morning children's programs as a
public service, subsidized by pro
fits gleaned from other programs.
During prime-time television,
programs are generally geared to
satisfy the desires of parents who
Page 4
object to tjie more mature shi
at that time thus keeping if'clfl
for children. Other program®
warn the viewer in advance!
material about to be presel
might be considered object«
]
for young children.
These guidelines appear®
meeting the requirements of |
cerned parents without enfol
censorship on the media. I
Rather than to resort to]
sorship, it is hoped that the I
will consider alternate mean
dealing with this problem, esa
lishing guidelines agreed upon]
both sides in this issue.
I
Parents are still expect«
set the rules in the household
their children without waiting]
others to satisfy the child's ■
for direction.
Also, advertisers have a resfl
sibility to the public as do 1
various media, which include!
vision.
In the event the FTC and#
advertisers cannot develop cool
ative guidelines, rather than to|
sort to censorship parentsshoi
feel the urgency to actin held
of their children.
Interested parents shouldwg
to the FTC and the advertise
voicing their opinions demand
that changes be made. I
If this does not bring resul
concerned parents could then bo
cott the advertiser's products®
advertisers find themselves ford
to change their advertising pr
sently laced with numerous entl
ments for young children.
When advertisers feel the pa
of lost revenue from a|Iboycoj
they will begin to listen and mal
appropriate changes without o
having to allow government cc
trol to establish regulationswhi
might ultimately result in loss
of even more important freedor
later.
Clackamas Community Colle
inches
v. ' /■
*7'
f
D50 Illuminant, 2 degree observer
Density